Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by servo75

  1. On 7/11/2020 at 9:53 AM, wolves said:

    Lol I wouldn't worry about the Libertarians, they're such jokes that Vermin Supreme won multiple primaries.

    Believe me I have major problems with the Libertarian Party, and about being jokes... sadly I must agree with you. If two people wearing funny hats are the front runners, and your best chance at electoral success is Justin Amash who apparently can't make up his mind what party he's in, your party is in desperate trouble. It's sad. They could and should be much more. I look forward to the day when we have a true 3-4 party system (or the Democrats implode and the Libertarians take their place, or even better, all parties go away). But I don't even think that's the point here. In making my own scenarios, I strive for accuracy, plus I like a little fantasy aspect to them. So I ask the question, "Okay, let's run this campaign but pretend that the LIbertarian Party actually fields potentially winning candidates with solid libertarian principles as opposed to former RINOs, that they have a competent leadership and top-down party structure, a well-defined platform, are able to communicate their ideas in a way that won't put rally goers to sleep and actually care about winning elections rather than sitting on the sidelines and armchair-quarterbacking the Republicans for not being pure enough (which they actually do have a kind of valid point for)." It's a stretch but one can dream... How far could they really go? So I take it as a challenge to play as the Libertarian and see if I can get a whopping 4% of the popular vote and come within 10 points of winning a state. It's depressing sometimes but challenging. It seems that the way President Infinity is structured @admin_270is that if your party's candidate is 2-3% in the polls to start, there's almost no chance of getting it above 6%. I'd like to see a scenario where a long-shot 3rd party candidate comes out of nowhere and gets enough electoral votes to send the election to deadlock. But it doesn't seem possible.

  2. 11 hours ago, lizphairphreak said:

    but rather from "we need to feel safe and _____ people challenge that safety.

    This is where we may differ a bit more. The transgender movement starts to lose me when they use language such as "we feel unsafe" or "having our existence erased." If there's a physical lack of safety I'd be interested in seeing the data before passing judgement. I think that, gender identity and sexual orientation aside, I feel much safer walking into a restroom with other men than a women's room where I'm the only male there. I certainly won't feel safe if others feel I'm infringing on their privacy. If I encounter 3 other guys in a mens room, I don't know who they are, what their orientation or identity is. And frankly I don't care, it's the last thing on my mind. I'm in there to take care of business and get out. The least interaction I have with anyone else the better. Among guys, even starting a conversation in a mens room with someone you don't know is a complete taboo.  Don't look at anyone or talk to anyone, just do what you have to do and leave. If a person walks in who, unbeknownst to me, happens to be transgender and is only using that room because the rules say they have to... I wouldn't tell the difference and couldn't care less. So I have to see someone make the case that a male using a bathroom or changing room with other males somehow affects their physical safety. It just makes no sense to me. In fact, it seems like quite the opposite. By contrast, if I walk into a women's locker room, whether it be an identity issue or just pure accident, I'm not going to feel very safe there because I know most of them don't want me there. In a men's room, they don't know who I am or what I am, nor do they even care.

    I like the back and forth we're having here. I'm a very open person and despite my overall conservatism am very socially progressive and am very willing to make some concessions if, as is happening here, we both approach the topic from a place of reason and mutual respect. The problem I have is if someone (and I don't think you're doing this btw) treats disagreement about bathrooms, pronouns, etc. by saying that a differing opinion makes them physically unsafe or "erases their existence," that's going to put me on the defensive and I have a hard time coming to the table when that's how the conversation starts.

  3. On 8/16/2020 at 5:12 PM, lizphairphreak said:

    when a child knows from a young age that they do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth

    But I still think that is pretty rare. I don't think that a child can reasonably be expected to be aware of things such as sexuality, their own or someone else's. Nor should they. I'm hearing reports, even from my own state, of school districts, particularly in Seattle, bringing sex education down to even kindergarten. That's just too early I think. I had no sense of sexual awareness of any kind until I was 13. Let them go through puberty first, rather than make a potentially irreversible decision based on what could just be a phase. I honestly think that any type of potentially permanent gender transition (hormones, surgery, etc.) should be banned for anyone under 16. Let them role play. If a boy feels like a girl, let him express it the way they want to. That's not to say some of these children may have genuine feelings of not belonging in their biological sex. But these situations need to be treated very carefully with intensive psychological evaluation by more than one expert before even considering such a thing.

  4. I don't mind starting @lizphairphreak. Let me get a few (I hope) points of agreement out first:

    1. No one should be coerced, forced, intimidated, or in the case of a minor child, suggested to get any counseling, procedure, hormone or conversion therapy that they do not want to get. A possible exception would be conventional counseling for a child who is having issues with gender dysphoria (or anything else).

    7 hours ago, lizphairphreak said:

    On this note, when institutions like universities and corporations try to be inclusive, they tend to be even clunkier (and hypocritical) without consultation. Because in many ways, they're just trying to cover their asses so people won't call them out

    2. There's something to this I think - some organizations try too hard by walking on eggshells, I think. People, in my opinion, should be treated as normally as possible and the more they try to make an issue out of something, the worse they sometimes make it. I have no issue with using the pronouns that someone would like me to use for them, if asked nicely.

    3. I'm no biologist, but I think we could separate sex (which is a physical/genetic characteristic) from gender identity. I'm of the belief that all biological males have some female personality traits, and all biological females have some male traits. There are shades of gray in personality traits. The only thing I would ask, particularly for minor children (and this is the flip side to #1) is again that they're not forced into undergoing any treatment that could have permanent effects, such as hormone therapy, etc. When I was a kid, I would play Barbies with my younger sister. I would pick up a doll and have it "talk" in a falsetto voice. Sometimes boys will put on their mother's old clothes, girls will want to throw the football around with their dad. I think this is perfectly normal childhood behavior and my parents never had any problems with it. I fear that these days there's such a rush to judgement, when things like above are not necessarily signs of gender dysphoria, they are things that the child will likely grow out of. I hear stories of children being removed from homes because a boy tells their teacher he thinks he's a girl and the parent doesn't immediately indulge him. If they reach 18 and still have doubts, or if they appear to be in severe psychological distress related to these things, are taking teasing because of it, that's another matter that has to be explored, but please let kids be kids, get them counseling as is appropriate, and wait until they're at least past puberty.

  5. 26 minutes ago, lizphairphreak said:

    I'm late to this post, but as someone on this forum who identifies as Nonbinary and uses They/Them pronouns (as well as someone who works with LGBTQ) causes I just wanted to chime in with a few stray thoughts.


    Lastly, I do want to commend most of the people who have commented on this for keeping it civil and for, at least as it seemed to me, for wanting to have a genuine conversation. One weird and insidious aspect I've noticed from anti-Transgender bigots is that they try to cloak much of their bigotry as "intellectual curiosity," and frame their attitudes as open discussions that will draw people who have real questions and uncertainty into conversations that they think will help answer their questions. I confess that when I started reading this thread, I thought that was what this post was going to turn into, but I was happy to see that it was an actual conversation. I hope that the conversation continues, and that it continues to be authentically open.

    I'm not super active on this forum, but as I said before, I do work with LGBTQ causes (as well as identify as Nonbinary) and would be happy to answer any questions or have conversations with any of you, if you're ever unsure about something or just curious. Always feel free to send me a message and I'll try to answer whenever I do log in.


    Thank you for posting this. It's always good to see another perspective. I'd like to discuss this further too and maybe we can generate more understanding. That's a very interesting perspective on the bathroom issue, for instance. We'll have our differences of course, but I think it will be fruitful.

    • Like 1
  6. 52 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

    Ok, buddy.

    I mean, Joe Biden won the nomination because of his overwhelming support by black voters even after Kamala's debate performance, but I'm sure everyone definitely suddenly believes he's racist now that he's chosen a black VP.

    Did I say I thought Joe Biden was a racist? No, and I even commented that you were correct that Kamala Harris didn't say that. I merely said that the bar for calling things/people racist has been set lower of late. Do you deny that? If so, that's fine but please debate what I actually said, not what you think that I think everyone "suddenly believes." And for Pete's sake don't put words in my mouth. I don't purport to know what "everyone" is thinking.

    Of course, WHY black voters support him is beyond me. Racist or not, his (and Harris's) civil rights record is atrocious to be generous. His and Obama's policies have led to increased illegal immigration and shutting down coal and oil, both of which devastate American low-skilled workers of which we always hear about how that disproportionately affects blacks. Joe Biden practically wrote the crime bill that led to the so-called "mass incarceration" of blacks to begin with.

    If it's so important to the Democrats to have a woman "of color" nominated, why didn't they vote for her? There were to my memory at least 2 Latinos, 4 women, 2 African Americans and a fake Native American in the race. And yet the two finalists were old white men.

  7. 18 hours ago, Actinguy said:

    At worst, she accused him of not being supportive enough of an anti-racist policy almost 50 years earlier.

    Technically you're correct, but these days that and much less is commonly interpreted as racism. I'm old enough to remember when even the mildest criticism of Obama's policies or any black leader for any reason whatsoever would be called racist. So the bar HAS been set extremely low.

    • Haha 1
  8. 18 hours ago, Actinguy said:

    Um...none of those things happened to me in college.  And I went while Obama was President.  I assure you that I saw neither play-doh nor coloring books the entire time.

    But if somebody wants to color on their own time, why does that even matter?

    Were you in college in the Fall of 2016? If these things didn't happen to you that's great but there are well-publicized events of these things happening, of young college students going apoplectic over the election results.

    And this isn't about coloring on one's own time. You're missing my point. And all of the links below were found in a 5 minute Google search.

  9. On 8/11/2020 at 9:46 PM, Reagan04 said:

    Unfortunately I don't have time to unpack the incredible, likely unintended, bigotry that is piled into this paragraph. I just want you to know that America is past this sort of 20th century thinking and I invite you to do better as well. Perhaps we'll discuss this again at some point but it's never a good day when basic human rights have to be defended against total dismissal.

    Oh please, do unpack it, I'm curious. What did I dismiss? I pretty much acknowledged that gender dysphoria is real. What is bigoted about what I said? Really? Can you name even one thing I said that is objectively bigoted? You have the right to your opinion, but at least argue against the points that I made. This is exactly what I talked about in "apology." Instead of directly refuting my points, it looks like you're taking the ad hominem approach here by calling me a bigot without any cause, basically insinuating that a "decent person" wouldn't think the way I think. Well you'd better be able to back that up pal, I take tremendous offense to accusing me of Orwellian "wrongthink" without even addressing the specific issues you're concerned about. I would expect this of the left wing "social justice warriors", where anything they don't agree with is "hate speech." You're really pushing my buttons here and I'm quickly losing my patience. I would love for you to enlighten me what "basic human rights" have to do with choice of bathrooms.

    A simple, "Servo with all due respect I disagree with you because of X, Y, and Z" would suffice. "I really think you're wrong on this and am curious why you think that way." Is that so hard??? Is this even possible for you to accept that people can disagree strongly with you but still be decent well-intentioned people? Do you have to assume people are somehow bad because they have even very unpopular opinions (which I don't agree mine is). Or do you have to instantaneously and cynically assume the worst in people? So if you're going to personally insult me with such bold and scurrilous assertions about my character, you'd better either solidly back them up with objective evidence, or have the decency to apologize. You and I disagree on a lot (though I think less than is apparent) but I expected better of you than to immediately jump to such base conclusions without even so much as parley.

  10. 9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

    They are uneasy partners in the GOP, as is obvious with people like Amash and Gary Johnson.

    Hmm, I don't know what you mean by "uneasy" partners. Amash and Johnson now are more libertarian than GOP. But there should be better partnership there especially with the vacuum left by the Democrats going so far left. I would like to see at least an informal partnership. The opportunity is definitely there as I think there are many disaffected Democrats who are looking for a new "home" but are put off by both the radicalism and socialism of the new Democrats, but also the hard-line social views of the Republicans. They're ripe for the picking by a Republican-Libertarian alliance that can really communicate their values. Unfortunately that's the blind leading the blind, and such an alliance I think will sadly never happen.  I've advocated for this this many times in conservative groups and the response is usually something in the vein of "I don't want to work with them because they're a bunch of open borders pot smokers." Which is greatly unfair and sad at the same time.


    9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

    Libertarians aren't a particularly good fit for conservatism.

    Big or little "L"? If the former, then sadly you're right. They've basically lost their way as a party and have not nominated people with true libertarian principles. I've wanted to vote Libertarian many times, particuarly for Dr. Jorgenson in 2020 but I can't bring myself to do it. It's not just that "they can't win." If a party shows true conviction, shows that they can win and want to win and have a game plan, a good ground game and national and local party structure, well organized leadership, and a polished candidate who can deliver a well-communicated and resonant message (some geography lessons wouldn't hurt either), and shows that they are truly desirous and ready to sit at the grownups' table and have the responsibility of governing rather than being content to sit on the sidelines and Monday-morning QB everyone else, then I will vote for the "L" if there's even a 1% chance of winning overall. Unfortunately the Libertarian Party over the past few election cycles, possesses almost none of those characteristics. Fifty years on, when The Republicans and Democrats had already put six and five Presidents, respectively in the White House at that same age, their electoral performance can charitably be described as "pathetic." If for little l, then I disagree somewhat. There's much more overlap I think, between the two, than differences, and certainly a hell of a lot more overlap with the GOP than with the Democrats. There are scarcely few true libertarians in Washington, and what few there are are almost all on the GOP side - 2 or 3 in the Senate and maybe a dozen in the House. I can't think of a single Congressional Democrat that I would consider a libertarian.
    I so WANT to proudly call myself a big-L Libertarian but until they start upping their game, I just can't do it.

    9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

    Hard-right' libertarians, especially, are rarely what I would consider conservatives. They tend toward social liberalism and economic policies that would lead to radical transformations of their societies - not really 'conserving' in the normal sense of conservatism.

    Again, not sure what you mean by "hard right"? My vision of hard-right libertarian is the anarcho-capitalist. I certainly wouldn't support someone like that, but I guess that whether you consider them "true conservatives" also depends on what flavor of conservatism you're talking about. I'd be genuinely interested in you fleshing out that statement a bit more.

  11. 34 minutes ago, pilight said:

    The GOP abandoned the Austrian School long ago.  Richard Nixon admitted as much in 1971 when he said "We're all Keynesians now".  The days when the Feds left people alone is over and it's not coming back.

    Yes and that's the whole problem. I'm not saying that all the people I mentioned were Austrians, that's missing the point. A big problem I find, and this is actually even worse with the Libertarian Party, is that for some reasons, the intellectual wing of these parties seem to think that good ideas win elections. They let perfect become the enemy of good. The Big-Ls have become too much like the Jedi Order to me. So caught up in dogmatic ideology that all sense of pragmatism goes out the window.

    For instance, I listen to a podcast of a certain Libertarian whose name I won't mention here but typical of much of the "intellectual right". They will sit back and say, "Donald Trump is overreaching his executive authority in signing those executive orders to extend unemployment and eviction moratorium." Yes, technically he's right. But they never say what THEY would have done differently. It's easy to armchair quarterback when you don't have the responsibilities of government.

  12. 2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

    Your ideal government was 100% slave owners.  That’s an even worse ratio than our real government was in our darkest days. ;c)

    It's really quite pitiful that this is all you see them as, and that this was your primary takeaway from my post. I'm flummoxed. And I REALLY hope you're not implying that I would prefer slaveowners to run the government BECAUSE they're slave owners.

  13. 4 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

    I was trying to do servo proud and not mention he who shall not be named but here goes: All the times that you have defended the Trump administration's wild expansion of power and shows of authoritarianism.

    I think there might be a small mix-up here. I can't speak for @admin_270 but just for myself, I don't defend any expansion of authoritarianism. The Presidency has become way too powerful over the course of the last 150 years. I would like to see a country where the Constitution is followed, and the Executive Branch (and really, the others too) are reined in so that they wouldn't be able to expand it at all. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the re-incarnation of George Washington in the White House, a Senate full of Jeffersons and a House full of Madisons. But alas, we don't. Now, there seems to be a thought process out there that goes something like... "Servo75 doesn't insult Trump. He's a bit forgiving of Trump's shortcomings. Therefore he must be a MAGA supporter. And since Trump is authoritarian, that must mean servo supports authoritarianism too."

    I mean that's clearly a ridiculous statement, and if someone assumed all Bernie voters were Marxists I'd find that just as laughable. But somehow Trump is the exception, he's seen as so evil so that there are no shades of gray, and it's a package deal. Anyone who finds him  so much as 1% acceptable must "obviously" defend every "horrible" thing he does. Ridiculous. Now let me preface what I'm about to write with the statement that I am not going to debate Trump's "authoritarianism" for the 105th time. It's futile at this point and I simply won't engage in that. I'm just talking about my own personal perspective here: When someone asks me if I'm a Trump supporter, I say it depends. By the far left definition I suppose I am, because that's a pretty low bar. Anyone who's not figuratively bashing his skull in every 10 minutes must be one of those "crazy MAGA people." They assume that supporting someone is a package deal. If you think Trump didn't collude with Russia than you "must" be a rabid supporter and therefore "must" rubber stamp every thing he does. I shouldn't need to say this for the umpteenth time: I am not a Trump supporter, nor am I a hater. I can like some of the things he does and dislike others. Why don't I express those criticisms more often, and why does it seem like I'm defending him so much? Simply because when the conversation starts out (and I'm not directing this at @Reagan04, it's just a general statement) with "Trump's a white nationalist authoritarian," we can't get down to the levels of what I believe to be fair criticism because we've got to get that boulder out of the way first. If we can't even agree that Donald Trump is not the second coming of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Genghis Khan all rolled into one, then it's impossible to get to the points of agreement. For example, yes Donald Trump tweets too much. But if Twitter were around in 1940, then whether Hitler Tweeted too much or not would be pointless. There's no sense arguing that because he was obviously an evil person and discussions centering around his authoritarianism would be valid and the fine details like that would be pointless to discuss.

    The bottom line is this: One can support the President without rubber stamping everything that he does. One can be an opponent without reflexively hating everything he does. We used to have that belief in American political discussion. So, and I don't know what @admin_270's direct opinion of POTUS is, but it's beside the point. One can say positive things about the President without giving the assumption that things like executive overreach (which has been happening for well over 100 years) are good things. People who support the President do not overlook his shortcomings and faults. They simply put them in perspective with everything else. That's my point of view. I realize some people think there's nothing to put in perspective with, that Trump is the 100% personification of pure evil. I leave them to their opinions and respectfully ask they leave me to mine. I'm done debating the issue. I just wanted to explain where I fall on things.


  14. 6 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

    I can only speak of the areas I have an insight into ;)  That might be true, but I would not support excluding a liberal from any activities. When people don't hold extremist believes they should be allowed to speak.

    Ah but who defines "extremist?" I can picture the Harvard campus circa 1770. "We can't allow people to be talking about breaking from England. How scandalous! A people without a monarchy to rule over them?" In other words, it's all subjective. I tend to be an absolutist on the 1st Amendment. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Ideas, no matter how grotesque, that are banned will be forced underground where they will fester. Let them be out in the open to be fully criticized. As a Jew, I would support the right of a Nazi to speak on campus. There would be about 5 people in an auditorium of 200 and even they'd be protestors. Let him have his sparsely attended event and see what an idiot he is. As long as one is not directly inciting violence (and to the SJWs out there I mean actual physical violence, not the "I don't feel safe hearing different ideas" crap) they should be allowed to speak no matter what.

    The biggest mistake made in the handling of Charlottesville was giving those assholes exactly what they wanted - media attention. People have never heard of the Streisand Effect, it seems. What should have been a small gathering of a marginalized group of white-supremacists which would have been quickly forgotten and thrown on the ash heap of history, turned into a media circus by the MSM and Black Lives Matter, thus playing right into their hands.

    • Haha 1
  15. 3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

    I don't think you understand the power of the Presidency and the looming impact Trump has had on the party. I think our relationship is plenty civil but I'll call things like I see them.

    We can't pretend that conservatism or the GOP is about "leaving people alone" when we are a party and ideological movement lead by Donald Trump. The two things are incompatible. That's all.


    I think that reducing regulations, signing a "right to try law" and "first step act" are steps toward leaving people alone. But even putting all that aside, you still remain a Republican despite your hatred of Trump. Why? If yours is still a party defined by Trump, why are you part of it? The irony is, I'm NOT a Republican, at least until their leaders grow a semblance of a spine, and they get their social policy into the 21st century. But this has NOTHING to do with Trump. I feel I'm able to separate the man from the party and ideology. It seems like you feel you're obligated to bring in the Trump Insult of the Day even when he's not the topic at hand. I believe there's more to any party or movement than any one person.

    Bottom line: If you think Trump is not a real Republican or real conservative, but then you say you're a party and ideological movement led by Trump, one that you still consider yourself a part of a movement led by a man that you hate, I see a bit of irony and contradiction there. That's all.

  16. 13 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

    erase the identities

    Did I delete their social security numbers or something? I can't believe you're falling for the SJW line of "we're not safe," or "our identities are being erased" because.... we won't give in and let you use whatever bathroom you want? Gender dysphoria is a real and serious thing. I feel bad for these people but they need treatment, not special privileges. And this isn't even about personal choice. As a libertarian, I believe one is free to believe they're a girl, a boy, or a 30 foot long talking zebra. I also believe in a non-aggression principle. I also believe that one does not have the right to force me acknowledge them as a 30 foot long talking zebra. One cannot force me to call them "xe" or "zim." One cannot make up their own bathroom rules just because they wake up and decide they're a girl one day, a boy the next, and non-gendered the day after that. Dysphoria is one thing, but we've gone past this into the point of delusion. If a 40-year-old man is going to "identify" as a 10 year old girl, that person is sick. I feel bad for him. I hope he gets the psychological treatment he needs. But we do him no favors by indulging him, any more than we tell the schizophrenic, "Yeah I know, I hear the voices too."

    • Haha 1
  17. 11 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

    If only this were true then Trump would not be President and party would not be bending over backwards to perform oral on him.

    Reagan04, I'm trying really hard to maintain a civil relationship here, but I'm getting really tired of you making EVERY one of my comments into something about Trump, even when I didn't mention him at all. It's almost like you have such a visceral and unquenchable hatred of the man that you have to reflexively insult him even when he's not even the topic of conversation. Chill out, dude.

    But since you brought him up, Trump would not be President if the party didn't bend over backwards to perform oral on the Democrats.

    • Haha 1
  18. 11 hours ago, admin_270 said:

    If someone is doing that, please bring it to my attention

    @admin_270 is there some way we can speak "ex parte"? I have reported a recent example, but prefer not to discuss this in public even though I have "ignored" those involved.

  19. 10 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

    Everyone has struggles in different areas. I live in a rural area and being a liberal here is not good, akin to a conservative in a city. 

    The difference is this - I was asked once if it was harder to be a conservative in a blue state or a liberal in a red state. I answered the former, and here's why: The liberal ethos is more government programs, regulations, and the taxes that go with it. Conservatives generally want everyone to be left alone. Hence, a group of Bernie bros in Alabama can get together and form a commune wherever and whenever they want. If a city or county in Idaho wants to guarantee health care for its residents, there's nothing stopping them. But if a state like California bans guns statewide, you can't have gun clubs because their rules are so more far reaching. There are more rules that affect EVERYONE. Whereas lack of regulations only affects groups that want more, and can have locally as much as they want. Bottom line: It's possible to have pockets of progressivism in red states, it's far less possible to have pockets of conservatism in blue states.

  20. 8 hours ago, Actinguy said:

    I mean...sometimes the truth is hostile towards conservatives.  Not all of the time.  But sometimes.  If a University is to be a place for truth, then it is sometimes not going to be giving conservatives a giant hug.

    We don't need a hug. We just don't understand why the other side does. We're talking about a group of insecure children who were so traumatized by Trump's victory that they needed to be excused from exams, given play-doh, coloring books and therapy dogs.  If the University is a place for truth, why are conservative speakers banned and attacked? Why are conservative students afraid to speak their mind and get ridiculed and marked down on papers when they do? Why do conservative clubs get shot down by Student Senates? Why are Universities becoming the enemy of free speech?

    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...